The First Wave Of Reviews For Paul Feig's GHOSTBUSTERS Are Here!

The embargoes have lifted, and the first wave of reviews for Paul Feig's Ghostbusters are here! Many people responded negatively after viewing the first trailer for the film, and after the second trailer was released, the reception was quite similar. Even so, based on these first wave of reviews, the film is not as bad as you though it would be. In fact, it's not that bad at all! Some critics even say that the reboot outshines Ivan Reitman's original in more ways than one. 

Right now, the film currently sits at a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes, but as you know, as more reviews flow in, that's definitely subjected to change. Will it be for the better, or the worse? We'll see in time. For now, check out the excerpts posted so far, then share your feedback in the comment section below.

SOURCE: Variety:

All reboots are haunted by the specter of the movie that inspired them, but Sony’s new gender-swapped “Ghostbusters” — which substitutes comediennes Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones for the previously all-male paranormal exterminator squad — suffers from a disappointingly strong case of déjà vu. While both funnier and scarier than Ivan Reitman’s 1984 original, this otherwise over-familiar remake from “Bridesmaids” director Paul Feig doesn’t do nearly enough to innovate on what has come before, even going so far as to conjure most of the earlier film’s cast (including Slimer and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man) in cameos that undercut the new film’s chemistry.

---

SOURCE: IGN:

The new Ghostbusters is a fresh take on the franchise, with four strong leads and an interesting new entrypoint into the series. The problems with the film come down to the movie itself, as the pacing and editing don't hold up what otherwise could have been a sharp, quick-witted reentry into a world fans hold dear. It doesn't help that this new Ghostbusters tries too hard to pay homage to the previous Ghostbusters movies instead of fully standing on its own. While there is plenty to enjoy about Paul Feig's new comedy, it's not going to be enough to stick it to the haters who spewed vitriol against the all-lady Ghostbusters on premise alone. [6.9/10]

---

SOURCE: HitFix:

Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters is, above all else, a real Ghostbusters movie. If you’re a fan of the 1984 original (as most comedy fans are), one of the things that’s interesting as you watch this one is the way it echoes off of that film. It is no simple remake, but neither is it a radical reinvention of the core idea. It’s simply a different riff on the same idea, with a solid dose of fan service thrown in to help make the transition from the old to the new. The script, by Feig and Katie Dippold, does some big things different, and the choices they make are intriguing. First and foremost, though, Ghostbusters is a big fat slice of silly summer entertainment, confident and sometimes quite beautiful. It is the biggest stretch Feig’s made so far as a filmmaker, embracing the technical side of things in a way he never has so far, and stuffed chock full of affection for everything that makes Ghostbusters such an enduring favorite.

---

SOURCE: The Guardian:

Rejoice! The new Ghostbusters is good. Very good, in fact. It had to be. No comedy has faced more advance scrutiny - even hostility – than Paul Feig’s reboot of Ivan Reitman’s beloved 1980s hit. It didn’t seem to matter Feig’s track record with mainstream comedy is peerless. Since hitting his big screen stride with Bridesmaids (2011), the sitcom veteran has consistently delivered: his two subsequent two female-led comedies, The Heat (2013) and Spy (2015), were spry and hilarious; both fronted by his muse, the venerable Melissa McCarthy, who he corralled into this Ghostbusters re-imagining. If ever there was a duo to bring the series into the 21st century, surely this was it.

---

SOURCE: Forbes:

Ghostbusters is neither the great comedy of its age, nor an “Everything you are doing is bad. I want you to know this” disaster. Its mere adequacy may become the most important part of its legacy, especially if it’s a hit. Ghostbusters makes the case for the conventionality of a female-fronted blockbuster while also arguing that such a thing can be just as “Eh, it’s okay” as any male-fronted one.

---

SOURCE: The Daily Beast:

Ghostbusters die-hards might disagree, but the remake is conceived with more complex aims than the first two films. The greatest upside is a new generation of youngsters now have a Ghostbusters movie of their own, with a disparate team of adult women to idolize, that holds dear the rules and tone and sweet core of the original films. Ghostbusters is remake as homage, swapping the gender of its heroes while keeping the bones of the plot and signatures of the first film.

---

SOURCE: Entertainment Weekly:

So why does Ghostbusters feel so restrained? For starters, it’s too slavish when it nods to the original (although its throw-back cameos are fun), and too flailing and flat when it strays from it (Feig and co-writer Katie Dippold introduce a ghost-unleashing villain, then don’t know what to do with him). Even the spectral f/x are oddly shlocky (seeing it in 3-D is pointless aside from one comin’-at-ya slime gag). McCarthy, of course, gets off some lunatic one-liners; McKinnon, the group’s loose cannon, can crack you up just by widening her wildcard eyes; Jones mixes her signature bluster with an air of gung-ho joy; and Wiig’s timing is as Swiss-precise as ever (that is, when she’s not being saddled as the film’s straight-woman). Even Chris Hemsworth, as the Ghostbusters’ dim, beefcake receptionist, is funny — for a while. But with a cast as daring and quick as this one, Ghostbusters is too mild and plays it too safe. Somewhere, I bet, there’s an R-rated director’s cut of the movie where these women really let it rip. I want to see that movie. C+

---

SOURCE: CNET: 

Sure, it's mostly chucklesome rather than laugh out loud, and it's nowhere near as quotable as the prototype. While the original "Ghostbusters" is a great comedy, "Schindler's List" it ain't, and treating it as some kind of sacred text is pretty laughable. This affectionate reinvention isn't going to make your copy of the original movie spontaneously combust any more than the past 30 years of lunchboxes, cartoon spin-offs or spurious toys. "Ghostbusters" is fun and silly, and if you don't like it you don't have to watch it. No need for mass hysteria.

---

SOURCE: NY Times:

Sliding into theaters on a river of slime and an endless supply of good vibes, the new, cheerfully silly “Ghostbusters” is that rarest of big-studio offerings — a movie that is a lot of enjoyable, disposable fun. And enjoy it while you can because this doesn’t happen often, even in summer, which is supposed to be our season of collective moviegoing happiness. The season when everyone jumps onboard (whee!) and agrees that, yes, this great goof is exactly what you were thinking when you wondered why they didn’t make summer movies like they used to.

 

---

SOURCE: We Got This Covered:

Does Ghostbusters reinvent a beloved “classic” in wholly new, invigorating ways? Hardly. Does it bomb like rabid, foamy-mouthed haters want it to? Never. Do moviegoers have a fun-filled, dashingly captivating blockbuster that kicks ghost-butt and scores one for the ladies? Like a vibrant, off-the-wall carnival attraction from the underworld, except with a lot less terror, and way more middle fingers to all the nay-sayers out there. This isn’t a monumental Ghostbuster redux, but a reimagining worth its weight in gooey slime nonetheless. [3.5/5*]

---

SOURCE: ScreenCrush:

Warts and all, the new Ghostbusters is still one of the best tentpoles of the summer (admittedly, that’s not saying much). It doesn’t tarnish the legacy of the original movie, and its own legacy might have been even stronger if it hadn’t worried about paying homage to the old Ghostbusters quite so intensely. The spirit of both Ghostbuster teams is irreverent; the spirit of the new movie is overly reverent in a way that doesn’t quite suit the characters, or the franchise as a whole. The best tribute they could have made to Ivan Reitman’s great film was a great film that stood completely on its own. This one doesn’t — but it isn’t terrible at all. 

---

SOURCE: The Hollywood Reporter:

However, although the new Ghostbusters follows the template of the original by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, the witless script by Feig and his co-writer on The Heat, Katie Dippold, has no juice. Short on both humor and tension, the spook encounters are rote collisions with vaporous CG specters that escalate into an uninvolving supernatural cataclysm unleashed upon New York's Times Square. It's all busy-ness, noise and chaos, with zero thrills and very little sustainable comic buoyancy.

---

SOURCE: Indie Wire:

“Ghostbusters” arrives as just one entry in an increasingly more inclusive Hollywood machine. “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” foregrounded the exploits of a young female Jedi with ease, while “Mad Max: Fury Road” slyly became less about Max than the scowling badass memorably embodied by Charlize Theron. By blatantly reworking the dynamic of the earlier films, “Ghostbusters” is more explicit in its progressive agenda and admirably achieves at least that. Its flaws lie elsewhere. At the end of the day, no amount of culturally enlightened intentions can rescue another undercooked studio product. Grade: C+

---

SOURCE: The Wrap